Community and Mission
“I have come to realize that aiming for community is a bit like aiming for happiness. It’s not a goal in itself. we find happiness as an incidental by-product of pursuing love, justice, hospitality, and generosity. When you aim for happiness, you are bound to miss it. Likewise with community. It’s not our goal. It emerges as a by-product of pursuing something else. Those who love community destroy it, but those who love people build community.” – Michael Frost, Exiles: Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture
I agree — sort of. The community is drawn together in authentic love and honesty when they, together, pursue the mission of God. It’s like the community that formed in The Wizard of Oz or the Lord of the Rings trilogy: unlikely people are brought together by engaging in a mission larger than themselves.
And yet . . . true community is itself the goal. Or at least a taste of the goal. God is seeking to bring all things together again — think “new creation” and “reconciliation” — and that means that community will break out.
But this community can be spoiled if it turns in on itself, forgetting that the work of God continues.
- – - -
CBS hoped there would be Katie Couric fans who would follow her to CBS. Diane and I have done just that. From Brokaw to Couric. Last night we got to see Jim Wallis talk about how many evangelicals are taking seriously the challenge to be “completely pro-life” (to quote Ron Sider). He kept resisting efforts to pin him as a person on the right or left, insisting that it isn’t about being a Republican or a Democrat but about being a Christ-follower who goes deeper in the call of the kingdom. When he said he thought he was something of a moderate, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, said that the only thing in the middle of the road is dead cats and smelly skunks. That added so much to the segment.
- – - -
Sorry I haven’t been very involved in comments the last few days. Just haven’t had time to keep up. Thanks for the discussions, though. Page loads have bumped up a bit the last couple weeks. Don’t know what that means in terms of actual people — but thanks.
Well, if Ann Coulter said it – it must be true. Let’s just hope we don’t see churches implementing Ann’s evangelism methods – you know, shoot all the radicals and force everyone else to be Christian by gunpoint.
…and let’s hope we don’t take up Katies causes of joining in Pro-Life marches and helping to set up legal defense funds for Andrea Yates.
JM, I thought the same thing when Mike posted that about Rush. It’s quite funny how people would blast Rush then go on to praise people like Rather, Couric, NPR and the like as if they can do no wrong either.
Sorry…that was supposed to be that Katie joins in Pro- CHOICE marches. Brain going too fast once again.
Rush scares me. As does Ann Coultor. And FOX news. Ever notice that folks that regularly listen to these folks and this network are adamant about only listening to them. It’s like if they listen to another network, they might hear things (truth) that they don’t want to hear.
And why does everyone take a “right” or “left” approach these days? You’re right – it didn’t use to be that way. It’s very sad when politics is so rampant in the church. One of my favorites is “Morality Matters – Vote Republican.” That makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. This is from a website of a christian. I find it very offensive.
Belinda, let me rephrase that for you:
“Chis Matthews scares me. As does Dan Rather. And CNN. Ever notice that folks that regularly listen to these folks and this network are adamant about only listening to them. It’s like if they listen to another network, they might hear things (truth) that they don’t want to hear.”
What truth are you talking about? The “truth” that Dan Rather and CBS came up with that was proven false? Sure, Fox does lean to the right. They are ONE network. One. How many others are out there?and just about all of them lean to the left so take your pick.
Oh man… the things we “debate” over must truly be laughable to God above. Either that or so so sad… either way, could we rise above this and move towards Jesus together… from both sides of the aisle?
Tim, I’m a bit stumped by you. On the one hand, you say that the sacred and the secular should be kept totally separate. It’s how you justified torture and why you said the government (”govco,” you called it) has no place in “charity” on that thread the other day. But then here you selectively decide that in SOME cases, you expect “Christian values” out of people on the secular side–praising Rush because he’s theoretically pro-life (except when it comes to war, of course, or capital punishment, or the poor, or….) and then slamming Katie Couric because she’s “pro CHOICE.”
So what’s your story? It looks like you’re merely justifying your own biases by selectively decrying “immorality” when you disagree with somebody’s politics and saying “it’s totally separate” when your folks violate ethical standards (for example, Rush’s drug use, cheating on his various wives, illegally tampering with prescriptions, etc.). I’m sorry to be so confrontational here, but I’m tired of seeing the pretense of moral indignation that keeps masquerading as theological or ethical concern in these threads. So what do you really believe? I just want you to be honest about when you’re applying a standard and when you’re willing to let it slide. And, by the way, I’d also like to suggest that a double-standard is no standard at all.
And what Belinda wrote is true: according to a non-partisan study by the University of Maryland, those who got their news from Fox were more than 3 times more likely (80% of viewers vs. 23% in the most extreme example) to hold inaccurate perceptions of the facts of the Iraq war (for example, they were more likely to believe that weapons of mass destruction had been found; they haven’t according to all of the military commanders) than those who got their news from other media sources. Fox viewers were twice as likely to hold inaccurate perceptions as those who got their news from CNN. The people with the most accurate perception? Those who got their news from NPR/PBS. You can check out the study yourself at .
Why should this difference in perceptions occur? Could it be that Fox really isn’t delivering the same quality of information as the other sources? Nah. That can’t be it. It must be some liberal conspiracy…
Do you want to know the real story? CNN, Katie Couric, and the rest are generally “moderate” (though understandably next to Fox they look “far left”). They may not hold the same moral values as all or even as most Christians. But Tim, you said that we needed to keep those things separate on that other thread. So I’ll hold you at your word on that. If you want to keep Jesus out of it and just talk politics, let’s do that: Rush is not a moderate. He’s on the right (though not the traditional right since he’s unconcerned about spiralling deficits, mismanagement of government resources, the rule of law, and most of the other issues held by traditional conservatives; technically, he’s a “neo-conservative,” but my guess is he’d throw that over too if it didn’t make him cash). And he does have a counterpart on the left–but it’s not Dan Rather. It’s Michael Moore.
(And, by the way, to all of you suggesting people should just listen to Rush for 6 weeks to “get him,” I’d like to make a counterproposal: I’ll do it if you’ll watch all of Michael Moore’s movies one-per-day for that same period–though my guess is that neither one of us will really benefit from that since listening to people at the outer poles of an argument rarely brings people toward consensus in the middle).
But here’s an even better proposal: Unlike some here, I don’t think you can keep the sacred and secular separate. I believe that Jesus is lord of all things–including our politics, our government, our structures of justice, our culture… everything. So I’m not content to apply standards only sporadically. Here’s what I propose: Let’s situate Rush and Michael (and Katie and Dan and Fox News and CNN and the Republicans and the Democrats and everything else) next to the witness of Jesus for 6 weeks and see how THEY hold up. If they don’t equally make us more sensitive to the poor and disenfranchised (remember what James identifies as “true religion”), more drawn to Christ’s model, more able to recognize our neighbors among those we despise, more loving of our enemies, then maybe we should try something else. Maybe instead of using Jesus to justify our particular biases we should situate our biases next to the model of Jesus and see what happens…
Rush and Michael Moore share a lot of the same gifts. Both are great at making comfortable people feel more comfortable. And both are great at making people more aware of distinctions and differences and less certain of their opponents’ shared humanity. Jesus wasn’t so good at either one of those things… But he was good at calling people–some to his grace and mercy, some to account for their hypocrisy, and all to a radical reenvisioning of themselves through lives of service and sacrifice. Sometimes his message was beautiful; other times, it was pretty hard to take. He told people what they needed to hear (as opposed to what they wanted to hear). He calls us to do the same.
For some reason, the web address got stripped out of my last message. Check out the media study at
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf
JT, I am all for moving towards Jesus but is there anything wrong with reasonable and sensible debate? I’m not talking about Nancy Grace debate where you get shouted down (sorry..screamed down) and belittled and not allowed to speak (O’Reilly debate).
Google is the best search engine
Is Jesus pro-life or pro-choice? I read he said to choose life. Hmmm….
I love Ann Coulter. Someone said it brilliantly, ‘don’t mistake Ann’s sarcasm for hatred.’
PS Whoever votes pro-choice has the blood of Gods’ children on their hands.